DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed January 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 20 has been amended. Claim 23 has been cancelled. Claim 29-34 have been added.
The Section 102 rejections made in the Office action mailed October 22nd, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 rejections made in the Office action mailed October 22nd, 2025 have been maintained due to Applicant’s arguments being unpersuasive. The rejections have been updated and modified to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that while the Examiner properly motivates for the product-by-process type limitation of overmolding the coating/paint layer as set forth in Bethune and/or Zollner or Yamamoto, the corresponding prima facie overlapping (or close enough preferred) thickness range(s) of the overmolded coating/paint layer is not properly motivated. The Examiner disagrees.
It is believed that the motivation for using the overmolding coating technique for forming the coating/paint layer generates an inherent motivation for using, or further optimizing through routine experimentation, any disclosed structural and compositional conditions thereof such as thickness ranges, wherein the disclosed workable corresponding thickness ranges are 10 to 150 µm [Bethune] and/or 10 to 3,000 µm [Zollner] or 13 to 100 µm [Yamamoto].
Although the aforementioned ranges do not anticipate Applicant’s, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Also, while Bethune further discloses a preferred range of 25 to 50 µm, this is considered close enough to impart the same properties, especially also in view of the expanded general range of Zollner, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Lastly, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the thickness of a coated layer since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the thickness as related to the specific part being coated and its desired functional properties (i.e. appearance, hardness, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, using the motivated overmolding technique for applying a coating/paint layer, to work within or further optimize workable thickness ranges corresponding with the technique.
Applicant also argues that the compositional particulars of the disclosed prior art are not taught by the prior art. The Examiner disagrees.
While the exact/specific values for each ingredient in a coating composition are not entirely taught by the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of a coated layer since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the thickness as related to the specific part being coated and its desired functional properties (i.e. appearance, hardness, etc.).
The claimed overmolding layers comprise 78 wt% polymer, 15 wt% carbon black, 5 wt% graphene, and 2 wt% coupling agent;
OR 30 wt% thermoplastic acrylic resin, 60 wt% solvent to which 8 wt% black coloring agent (95 wt% carbon black and 5 wt% graphene), 1 wt% dispersing agent, and 1 wt% coupling agent are added, wherein upon 100% the solvent drying would give the final composition of 75 wt% acrylic resin, 3 wt% dispersing and coupling agents, 19 wt% carbon black, and 1 wt% graphene OR 83 wt% resin, 2 wt% dispersing and coupling agents, 13 wt% carbon black, and 1 wt% graphene, depending on if the .
Therefore, the combined disclosure of Issartel, Kim, and Guo provide a decorative timepiece coating taught by Issartel comprising a polymeric binder, a carbon black pigment, and additives such as dispersing agents or adhesion promoters [wherein additives are well-known added in amounts of less than 10 wt%], and optionally solvents, wherein the amount of polymeric binder is usually 15 to 60 wt% and the amount of pigments is usually 19 to 58 wt% [Issartel], wherein Kim further teaches a black matrix resin comprising a carbon black colorant (A) included at about 20 to 70 wt% relative to the solid content with a surfactant/dispersant comprising 0.05 to 0.5 parts by mass relative to 1 part by mass of the colorant giving a range of 1 to 35 wt% surfactant/dispersant (likely being toward the lower end as an additive), a resin/polymeric binder (B+C) at about 15 to 80 wt% relative to the solids content, and 1 to 30 wt% graphene (E) relative to the solids content which further prevents light leakage and increases mechanical strength [Kim], which gives 40-99 wt% carbon black and 1 to 60 wt% graphene relative to A + E only, an adhesion promoter being silanes [which are typically used in amounts of about 0.5-2 wt% as evidenced by the pamphlet set forth in Shin Etsu in acrylic or epoxy resins (pg. 12) or polyurethane resins (pg. 20)], wherein the solvent (F) is included in a 60 to 90 wt% with respect to the total amount of the black photosensitive composition, wherein the colorant and graphene are added to the solvent along with the additives and then the resin, wherein the solvent containing values are 12-63 wt% carbon black, 0.6-27 wt% graphene, and 9 to 72 wt% resin/polymer, wherein Guo teaches the combination of carbon black and graphene is known to synergize to form an ultrablack coating that provides additional light trapping within the coating [Guo], wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to potentially lower the required relative amount of black pigment/graphene due to the synergistic effect of carbon black and graphene as a black coloring agent and the desired amount of optical density being less than 4 [which is required for Kim).
This would provide one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention with some general workable ranges for the polymeric component, caron black, graphene, and coupling (and dispersing agents), for use with or without solvents, and the understanding of the function of each component in the overmolding coating/paint composition such that the optimum value for each component could be discovered through routine experimentation depending the desired optical density (level of blackness).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 20-22 & 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeanrenaud et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0292999 A1) (hereinafter “Jeanrenaud”) in view of Bethune et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0038407 A1) (hereinafter “Bethune”) AND/OR Zollner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151911 A1) (hereinafter “Zollner”) OR Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 5,968,444) (hereinafter “Yamamoto”), wherein claims 29-31 are optionally further in view of Francois (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0284491 A1) (hereinafter “Francois”).
Regarding claims 20-22 and 29-34, Jeanrenaud teaches an external element/component in horology or jewelry [0001-0002] comprising a surface layer (All Figs. [6]) that is patterned before (All Figs. [2/3/11]) or after being coated [0023-0025], wherein the surface layer comprises one or more layers of (thermoplastic) acrylic resin or (thermosetting) epoxy resin [0050].
However, further regarding claims 20 and 33-34, the coating by overmold and coating thickness range(s) are not taught.
Bethune teaches a decorative product that is painted or varnished, wherein the prior art processes of application can provide uneven coatings/paint loss and possible environmental issues [0006, 0020, 0040], wherein the in-mold coated (overmold) product provides a surface layer of 10 to 150 µm [0033], the paints can be based on polyurethane or epoxy [0031].
AND/OR
Zollner teaches a decorative product that comprises an injection-molded lacquer/varnish (overmold) layer, such as polyurethane, that is applied uniformly, independently of its thickness, wherein a thickness can be anywhere in the range of 0.01 to 3 mm (10 to 3,000 µm) [0019, 0029], preferably not containing solvent such as polyurethane lacquer [0030].
OR
Yamamoto teaches a painted or decorative surface that does not require subsequent painting without lamination techniques, provided by injection/insert molding to provide more uniform decorative characteristics at a thickness of 13-100 µm (col. 1, lines 18-37 & col. 2, lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a colored varnish/lacquer/paint film as an overmolded color layer having a corresponding workable thickness obviously near or within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide even coatings with no paint loss and avoid environmental issues [Bethune] AND/OR provide a layer independently of its thickness [Zollner] OR providing a uniform layer that avoids the issues of lamination and painting [Yamamoto].
Regarding the particulars of using thermoplastic polyurethane resin, thermosetting epoxy resin, or thermoplastic acrylic resin in each of the corresponding claims 29-31, Francois teaches a pigment containing lacquer/paint/coating that can be overmolded and is chosen from a thermoplastic acrylic, thermosetting epoxy, or thermoplastic elastomer polyurethane depending on the hardness or softness desired [0015-0017, 0062].
Claims 20-22 & 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Netuschill et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0269356 A1) (hereinafter “Netuschill”) in view of Bethune et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0038407 A1) (hereinafter “Bethune”) AND/OR Zollner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151911 A1) (hereinafter “Zollner”) OR Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 5,968,444) (hereinafter “Yamamoto”), wherein claims 29-31 are optionally further in view of Francois (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0284491 A1) (hereinafter “Francois”).
Regarding claims 20-22 and 29-34, Netuschill teaches a decoration horological component [0002-0005] comprising a one or more layers of color coating comprising (thermosetting) epoxy or acrylic resin/lacquer [0005, 0008-0009, 0038, 0061], which is part of (Figs. 3-4) or further patterned (Figs. 1, 6, 8-10).
However, further regarding claims 20 and 33-34, the coating by overmold and coating thickness range(s) are not taught.
Bethune teaches a decorative product that is painted or varnished, wherein the prior art processes of application can provide uneven coatings/paint loss and possible environmental issues [0006, 0020, 0040], wherein the in-mold coated (overmold) product provides a surface layer of 10 to 150 µm [0033].
AND/OR
Zollner teaches a decorative product that comprises an injection-molded lacquer/varnish (overmold) layer that is applied uniformly, independently of its thickness, wherein a thickness can be anywhere in the range of 0.01 to 3 mm (10 to 3,000 µm) [0019, 0029].
OR
Yamamoto teaches a painted or decorative surface that does not require subsequent painting without lamination techniques, provided by injection/insert molding to provide more uniform decorative characteristics at a thickness of 13-100 µm (col. 1, lines 18-37 & col. 2, lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a colored varnish/lacquer/paint film as an overmolded color layer having a corresponding workable thickness obviously near or within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide even coatings with no paint loss and avoid environmental issues [Bethune] AND/OR provide a layer independently of its thickness [Zollner] OR providing a uniform layer that avoids the issues of lamination and painting [Yamamoto].
Regarding the particulars of using thermoplastic polyurethane resin, thermosetting epoxy resin, or thermoplastic acrylic resin in each of the corresponding claims 29-31, Francois teaches a pigment containing lacquer/paint/coating that can be overmolded and is chosen from a thermoplastic acrylic, thermosetting epoxy, or thermoplastic elastomer polyurethane depending on the hardness or softness desired [0015-0017, 0062].
Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netuschill in view of Bethune and/or Zollner or Yamamoto, as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Issartel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0139738 A1) (hereinafter “Issartel”), and Kim et al. (KR 2013-0048641 A) (hereinafter “Kim”), as evidenced by Shin Etsu (Silicones for Paints & Coatings) (hereinafter “Shin Etsu”), and optionally Guo et al. (CN 111393988 A) (hereinafter “Guo”), wherein claims 27-28 is evidenced by Zhao et al. (Color: An Important but Overlooked Factor…) (hereinafter “Zhao”) OR as evidenced by or even further in view of Bockmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0222185 A1) (hereinafter “Bockmann”).
Regarding claims 24-28, a specific pigmented composition is not taught for Netuschill.
Issartel teaches a decorative coating for a watch comprising a polymeric binder, such as preferably polyurethane, a pigment, a filler, and additives [0062-0069], such as dispersing agents or adhesion promotors [0116], wherein a black pigment is carbon black, such as an example comprising Emperor 1200 (Lamp Black) [0095, Table 1, 0220-0225], and optionally a solvent for holding the pigments if needed [0061, 0140], wherein the amount of binder is usually 15 to 60 wt% and the amount of pigments is usually 19 to 58 wt% [0098].
However, the disclosure of an acrylic binder, the amount of dispersing agent, the type of coupling agent, or the user of graphene in addition to carbon black is not taught.
Kim teaches a black matrix resin having a high hardness and high optical density of 4.0 or greater in the visible range and excellent light leakage prevention [0005], wherein the black pigment (A) of carbon back [0020-022], which can be 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the solids, is dispersed by a dispersing agent comprising about preferably about 0.05 to 0.5 parts per 1 part pigment (~1% - 35wt%) [0025, 0030], combined with 1 to 30 wt% graphene (E) with respect to the solids content, which gives 40-99 wt% carbon black and 1 to 60 wt% graphene relative to A + E only, wherein the added graphene prevents light leakage and increases mechanical strength and is also added to the dispersing solvent [0084, 0087, 0096, 0182], the composition further includes a resin/polymeric binder (B+C) at about 15 to 80 wt% with respect to the solids content [0044, 0051], and adhesion promoters comprising silanes [0112], wherein silanes are evidenced by Shin Etsu to be included in acrylic, epoxy, and polyurethane compositions at about 0.5 to 2 wt% (pgs. 12 & 20), wherein an added solvent (F) is included wherein the solvent is included in an amount of 60 to 90 wt% with respect to the total amount of the black photosensitive composition, wherein the colorant and graphene are added to the solvent along with the additives and then the resin, wherein the solvent containing values are 12-63 wt% carbon black, 0.6-27 wt% graphene, and 9 to 72 wt% resin/polymer.
Furthermore, Guo proves the effect of adding graphene works for a black paint/coating, wherein the graphene and carbon black synergize to form an ultrablack coating that provides additional light trapping within the coating [0024].
AND
Bockmann teaches that a pigment coating of only 0.1 to 5 wt% of carbon black generally gives L* values ranging from 3 to 10, wherein high blackness or “deep black” values comprise 0.4 to 2 [0003 & 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a carbon black pigment-based coating comprising a composition optimizably similar to that as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for similar types of decorative coatings for watches [Issartel], using graphene as a filler to prevent unwanted light leakage and increase mechanical strength [Kim], wherein the amount of carbon black (and graphene) relative to the resin may be chosen from close to or within the lower end of the prior art range(s) due to the synergistic effect of carbon black with graphene as a secondary black pigment for an ultrablack coating by providing additional light trapping properties [Guo] and/or due to a lower level of blackness desired with a minimal amount of carbon black added [Brockmann].
Further regarding claims 27-28, carbon black inherently comprises a L*=0 as evidenced by Zhao (pg. 9162, Effect of Color Lightness), wherein Bockmann evidences/teaches that a pigment coating of only 0.1 to 5 wt% of carbon black generally gives L* values ranging from 3 to 10, wherein high blackness or “deep black” values comprise 0.4 to 2 [0003 & 0006], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further optimize and potentially reduce pigment amounts in coating from the higher range of 20 to 70 wt% depending on the blackness level desired.
Claims 20-22 & 29-34, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Klein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2,278,520) (hereinafter “Klein”) in view of Kobayashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0334536 A1) (hereinafter “Kobayashi”), AND Bethune et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0038407 A1) (hereinafter “Bethune”) AND/OR Zollner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151911 A1) (hereinafter “Zollner”) OR Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 5,968,444) (hereinafter “Yamamoto”), wherein claims 29-31 are optionally further in view of Francois (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0284491 A1) (hereinafter “Francois”).
Regarding claims 20-22 and 29-34, Klein teaches an illuminable panel and dial for a horological component comprising a base, such as (meth)acrylic resin (pg. 1, right column, lines 38-43) having coated on its surface, a black paint having markings/figures left light transmitting (patterned) (pg. 2, left column, lines 5-9).
However, a specific thermoplastic or thermosetting base for the paint is not taught.
Kobayashi teaches a patterned colored paint for a watch dial comprising (thermoplastic) acrylic resin but also not limited options also comprising (thermoplastic) polyurethane resin [0030]. It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art for resin base polymers used in color coatings for watch dials.
However, further regarding claims 20 and 33-34, the coating by overmold and coating thickness range(s) are not taught.
Bethune teaches a decorative product that is painted or varnished, wherein the prior art processes of application can provide uneven coatings/paint loss and possible environmental issues [0006, 0020, 0040], wherein the in-mold coated (overmold) product provides a surface layer of 10 to 150 µm [0033].
AND/OR
Zollner teaches a decorative product that comprises an injection-molded lacquer/varnish (overmold) layer that is applied uniformly, independently of its thickness, wherein a thickness can be anywhere in the range of 0.01 to 3 mm (10 to 3,000 µm) [0019, 0029].
OR
Yamamoto teaches a painted or decorative surface that does not require subsequent painting without lamination techniques, provided by injection/insert molding to provide more uniform decorative characteristics at a thickness of 13-100 µm (col. 1, lines 18-37 & col. 2, lines 5-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a colored varnish/lacquer/paint film as an overmolded color layer having a corresponding workable thickness obviously near or within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide even coatings with no paint loss and avoid environmental issues [Bethune] AND/OR provide a layer independently of its thickness [Zollner] OR providing a uniform layer that avoids the issues of lamination and painting [Yamamoto].
Claims 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Klein in view of Kobayashi, and Bethune and/or Zollner or Yamamoto, as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Issartel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0139738 A1) (hereinafter “Issartel”), and Kim et al. (KR 2013-0048641 A) (hereinafter “Kim”), as evidenced by Shin Etsu (Silicones for Paints & Coatings) (hereinafter “Shin Etsu”), and optionally Guo et al. (CN 111393988 A) (hereinafter “Guo”) and/or optionally Bockmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0222185 A1) (hereinafter “Bockmann”), wherein claims 27-28 is evidenced by Zhao et al. (Color: An Important but Overlooked Factor…) (hereinafter “Zhao”) OR as evidenced by or even further in view of Bockmann et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0222185 A1) (hereinafter “Bockmann”).
Regarding claims 24-28, a specific black composition is not taught for Klein.
Issartel teaches a decorative coating for a watch comprising a polymeric binder, such as preferably polyurethane, a pigment, a filler, and additives [0062-0069], such as dispersing agents or adhesion promotors [0116], wherein a black pigment is carbon black, such as an example comprising Emperor 1200 (Lamp Black) [0095, Table 1, 0220-0225], and optionally a solvent for holding the pigments if needed [0061, 0140], wherein the amount of binder is usually 15 to 60 wt% and the amount of pigments is usually 19 to 58 wt% [0098].
However, the disclosure of an acrylic binder, the amount of dispersing agent, the type of coupling agent, or the user of graphene in addition to carbon black is not taught.
Kim teaches a black matrix resin having a high hardness and high optical density of 4.0 or greater in the visible range and excellent light leakage prevention [0005], wherein the black pigment (A) of carbon back [0020-022], which can be 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the solids, is dispersed by a dispersing agent comprising about preferably about 0.05 to 0.5 parts per 1 part pigment (~1% - 35wt%) [0025, 0030], combined with 1 to 30 wt% graphene (E) with respect to the solids content, which gives 40-99 wt% carbon black and 1 to 60 wt% graphene relative to A + E only, wherein the added graphene prevents light leakage and increases mechanical strength and is also added to the dispersing solvent [0084, 0087, 0096, 0182], the composition further includes a resin/polymeric binder (B+C) at about 15 to 80 wt% with respect to the solids content [0044, 0051], and adhesion promoters comprising silanes [0112], wherein silanes are evidenced by Shin Etsu to be included in acrylic, epoxy, and polyurethane compositions at about 0.5 to 2 wt% (pgs. 12 & 20), wherein an added solvent (F) is included wherein the solvent is included in an amount of 60 to 90 wt% with respect to the total amount of the black photosensitive composition, wherein the colorant and graphene are added to the solvent along with the additives and then the resin, wherein the solvent containing values are 12-63 wt% carbon black, 0.6-27 wt% graphene, and 9 to 72 wt% resin/polymer.
Furthermore, Guo proves the effect of adding graphene works for a black paint/coating, wherein the graphene and carbon black synergize to form an ultrablack coating that provides additional light trapping within the coating [0024].
AND
Bockmann teaches that a pigment coating of only 0.1 to 5 wt% of carbon black generally gives L* values ranging from 3 to 10, wherein high blackness or “deep black” values comprise 0.4 to 2 [0003 & 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a carbon black pigment-based coating comprising a composition optimizably similar to that as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for similar types of decorative coatings for watches [Issartel], using graphene as a filler to prevent unwanted light leakage and increase mechanical strength [Kim], wherein the amount of carbon black (and graphene) relative to the resin may be chosen from close to or within the lower end of the prior art range(s) due to the synergistic effect of carbon black with graphene as a secondary black pigment for an ultrablack coating by providing additional light trapping properties [Guo] and/or due to a lower level of blackness desired with a minimal amount of carbon black added [Brockmann].
Further regarding claims 27-28, carbon black inherently comprises a L*=0 as evidenced by Zhao (pg. 9162, Effect of Color Lightness), wherein Bockmann evidences/teaches that a pigment coating of only 0.1 to 5 wt% of carbon black generally gives L* values ranging from 3 to 10, wherein high blackness or “deep black” values comprise 0.4 to 2 [0003 & 0006], wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further optimize and potentially reduce pigment amounts in coating from the higher range of 20 to 70 wt% depending on the blackness level desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 21st, 2026